November 23, 2017

Wolf Species Are Part Coyote

Gray wolves, pushed to near extinction in the 1960s, have roamed North America alongside two other wolf species—the red wolf in the southeastern U.S. and the Eastern wolf in the area surrounding the Great Lakes. But an analysis of their genomes has revealed a surprise: they are all actually one type of wolf, with varying amounts of coyote DNA, a study reported this week (July 27) in Science Advances.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Eastern Coyote DNA

I am told this is the result of DNA testing of eastern coyotes in New York.

EasternCoyoteDNA

Share

Identifying “Wolves”: It Doesn’t Get Any More Daffy Than This

Below is a copy of a press release sent out by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources that contains the most asinine statement I think I have read in a long, long time. “Hunters” shot and killed two wild dogs in Iowa. After DNA testing, “no charges will be filed in either case.”

Retired wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, James Beers, wrote extensively on this subject about two months ago. Find his article at this link.

The real clincher that exemplifies complete idiocy is this statement: “Going forward, hunters need to know the difference between the species,” said Gipp. “On our end, we will provide additional wolf-coyote identification tools on our website and in our publications. We know hunters want to do the right thing and we want to help them.”

Isn’t that just brilliant. Wildlife officials and biologists, with two dead dogs in front of them, in which they could thoroughly examine the carcasses, including skulls, had to rely on DNA testing to prove whether or not the nasty, wild canines were wolves or coyotes. And what criteria is used to determine the difference? Just thought I would ask as there is no longer any such animal as a “pure” wolf.

“Going forward,” the mental midgets are going to provide “identification tools” to help hunters tell the difference before they shoot. I hope one of those tools is an instant DNA test kit…whatever to hell that is.

I mean honestly. You can’t make this stuff up.

But, now that I’ve pointed this all out, can it be that this is the “secret” plan? Can it be that this only appears to be stupidity? Is it, in fact, orchestrated? Just think. If the environmentalist perverts get their way, and can continue to substantiate any and all claims that there should be no hunting or trapping of any wild dogs (to protect wolves – wink, wink), because “going forward, hunters need to know the difference,” but it’s impossible to do that. So, then what? I think I already answered that.

But, don’t go look!

Press Release from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources:

Test results conclusively identified two large canines shot this winter in Osceola County and Van Buren County as wolves, likely originating from the Great Lakes population in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. The samples were tested at the University of California-Davis.

Investigation into both shootings was conducted and no charges will be filed in either case.

“We understand this is a sensitive topic and that our decision not to charge will be unpopular with some, but in these two incidents, based on the results of our investigation we feel it is the right course of action,” said Chuck Gipp, director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

The wolves will be used for education outreach at the local county conservation boards.

Gray wolves are listed as endangered under endangered species laws at both state and federal level and there is no open season in Iowa. Iowa has seen a recent increase in the number of wolves moving in from established populations in the Great Lakes region, so hunters need to be aware of the possibility that what they are looking at may not be a coyote.

“Going forward, hunters need to know the difference between the species,” said Gipp. “On our end, we will provide additional wolf-coyote identification tools on our website and in our publications. We know hunters want to do the right thing and we want to help them.”

The DNR is asking anyone who encounters a wolf to contact their local conservation officer or wildlife biologist.

Coyotes and wolves share many similar characteristics including coloring, but there are features where they differ.

Wolves are 5-6 feet long from nose to tail, 27-33 inches at the shoulder and weigh 50-100 pounds. Coyotes are 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 feet long, 20-22 inches at the shoulder and weigh 35-40 pounds.

Coyote hunting season is open all year long, but participation is often highest in January and February especially after January 10 when other hunting seasons close. The number of coyotes harvested in 2013-14 was an all time record high of 15,347. The second highest total was in 2014-15 with 13,911. The current season is expected to be similar. Hunting and trapping are about the only tools to provide some level of population management for coyotes.

The DNR is reviewing how it handles reported sightings for wolves and other occasional visitors internally as the number of these visitors is increasing.

Share

Epigenome

 

An epigenome consists of a record of the chemical changes to the DNA and histone proteins of an organism; these changes can be passed down to an organism’s offspring via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Changes to the epigenome can result in changes to the structure of chromatin and changes to the function of the genome.  (wikipedia)

 

In the “2015 Lubbock Conference Session 4:  Rob Sibka – Nephilim Genetics and the Rise of the X-Men” video, changes in genes via the epigenome are explained in short detail neat the time-frame of 104 minutes.

 

 

Share

If It Looks Like a Duck, Walks Like a Duck, It’s a Red Wolf

“The red wolf had always been a puzzle,” Robert Wayne, a biologist at UCLA, told me. In 1991, he and a team of researchers set out to decipher the red wolf’s origins. At that time, some scientists believed the red wolf was more closely related to the coyote, while others believed it was more like the gray wolf. But the only available evidence was a handful of fossils and historical records. Few scientists had ever worked with living red wolves. Wayne and his team wanted to settle the question of the red wolf’s origins once and for all. “I was hoping to be the first person to sequence DNA from a red wolf,” said Susan Jenks, a biologist at Russell Sage College who co-authored the analysis.

Wayne and Jenks started with blood samples from red wolves living in captivity in American zoos, focusing on 4 percent of the genome. When they sequenced the DNA, however, they were mystified. Every section of red wolf DNA matched almost exactly with the equivalent section of DNA from two other animals: the gray wolf and the coyote. They found no part of the red wolf’s genome that was unique. “I kept running the analyses and checking and double-checking for contamination,” Jenks said. The conclusion, however, was inescapable. “Finally it occurred to me it would make sense that they’re hybrids,” Jenks said.

Source: What’s a Species, Anyways? | New Republic

Share

Wolves: NEVER ENOUGH – NEVER

*Editor’s Note* – They just make this stuff up as they go!

The number of wolves in Sweden, around 400, is so low that there is a definite danger of inbreeding. Earlier this month the Environmental Protection Agency released a report that said the country needs at least 300 wolves to maintain a healthy population.

But besides that, it said at least one wolf needs to enter the country from the east every wolf generation, or five years, to extend the genetic diversity, Maria Hörnell Willebrand, head of the wildlife assistance department at the agency, tells Radio Sweden.emboldening added]

Source: Sweden to study Russian wolf DNA

Share

The Invention of “Frankenwolf” in North Carolina

*Editor’s Note* – While readers await Part VII, of the 7-part email series about the corruption and incompetence of introducing so-called red wolves into North Carolina, consider the evidence presented as to how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service invented a wild dog species to protect under the Endangered Species Act at an overwhelming cost to the American Public. Job security I would guess. After all, isn’t this simply a reflection of all things GOVERNMENT?

Director Ashe,

I know these comments from a rather heated meeting of USFWS biologists in1989 are rather technical, so I have put in bold letters the key and shocking revelations regarding the cover up of the red wolf invention. Keep this quote from USFWS Zoologist/Biologist Ron Nowak in mind as you read.

InventingRedWolf

?
The USFWS’s $30,000,000.00 “Invention”

“In 1979, US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Ronald Nowak carefully compared the skulls of grey wolves, and coyotes and noticed that the size and shape of the red wolf skull fell midway between that of the coyote and the grey wolf. Nowak’s interpretation of the fossil record further suggested to him that intermediate skulls like that of the red wolf skull first appeared in North America more than a million years ago, well before the first wolves or coyotes.” “Nowak concluded that the red wolf was not only a unique species but also the ancient ancestor of both the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Nowak’s compelling idea one that persisted almost unchallenged for 10 years, throughout the early years of the Red Wolf Recovery Program.”

“But David Mech had a different theory about red wolves.” “In a 1970 book , Mech had proposed that the red wolf was neither species nor subspecies but a hybrid produced by interbreeding between the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Into this heated conflict stepped David Mech, one of the world leading wolf experts. In 1989, at an Atlanta meeting of experts on wolf biology, Mech challenged his fellow researches to tell him how they could justify spending so much money rescuing the red wolf when it might not even be a species.”

“In 1989, two University of California biologist, Robert Wayne (of UCLA) and Susan Jenks (of UC Berkley), approached the US Fish and Wildlife Service and offered to settle the matter once and for all.” “Like Nowak, Wayne was an expert on the morphology and taxonomy of wolves and other canids.”

“The government agreed to fund the study, and the two biologist began examining DNA from red wolves, grey wolves and coyotes.”

“The two biologist tentatively and somewhat reluctantly concluded that the red wolf was most likely a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Nowak and the other biologist at the US Fish and Wildlife Service could not believe what they were being told.” “Maybe, argued the government biologist, Wayne and Jenks had simply missed the DNA sequences that distinguished the red wolf.” Maybe they had not looked at enough DNA.”

“To put to rest any linger doubts, Wayne and other colleagues turned to special receptive regions of the DNA in the nucleus, called micro satellites.” “The results were the same, neither the samples of blood from living red wolves nor the samples from the skins of pre-1930s red wolves showed any unique sequences.” “By 1994, Wayne had found no evidence that the red wolf had ever been reproductively isolated from either grey wolves or coyotes.”

“The red wolf had to be a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote.”

“Wayne’s genetic data proved to be an embarrassment to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which had poured millions of dollars into the reintroduction program in the belief that the red wolf was a unique and endangered species.” “Yet the agency had acted in good faith.” “Until Wayne and his colleagues finished their research, the US Fish and Wildlife Service had no way of knowing that the red wolf was not a species.”

“Now the government agency was faced with a terrible dilemma.” “Wayne’s resulting threaten to discredit the wolf recovery program, strip the red wolf of its endangered status, and further undermine the increasingly battered public image of the federal Endangered Species Act.”

*** “To protect the red wolf, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began pressuring Wayne to avoid the word “Hybrid” in his research papers and to substitute the term “intergrade species” and other similar phrases.”

“In 1995, the US Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion that said that hybrids would be protected under the Endangered Species Act if Morphological evidence showed that the hybrids ere similar to the endangered “Pure” form.”

“In essence, if they looked like red wolves, they would be protected.”

“But the genetic data did not support that idea that a “Pure” form of the red wolf had ever existed, certainly not in the last 100 years.”

“In issuing this opinion, the agency excluded all the genetic evidence regarding the red wolf’s species status.” The only question was whether the red wolf looked different from the coyote and the grey wolf.”

“It did, and, therefore, until such time as the government acknowledges the genetic data, the red wolf will be considered a species.”

https://books.google.com/books?id=cjgdW4SjoJcC&pg=PA397&lpg=PA397&dq=ronald+nowak+red+wolf+map&source=bl&ots=rxq05Z

Director Ashe, the red wolf did not exist so it was “invented” by USFWS through omission of your own Government funded current science.

Ponder this over the weekend, as it is heavily tied into Part 7 due out on Monday.

Sincerely,

Jett Ferebee

Share

Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds: Current Biology

The closest living relative of domestic dogs is the gray wolf, Canis lupus , but the number of domestication events, as well as their antiquity and geographical origin, is highly contentious. While molecular estimates of the time of origin of the dog lineage are contingent on principally unknown mutation rates and generation times, the most recent genomic estimates of the divergence between wolves and dogs date to 11,000 to 16, 000 years ago. These estimates are in considerable discord with reported archaeological evidence of dog-like canids from before the Last Glacial Maximum, which date as far back as 36,000 years before present (BP). Furthermore, a recent study showed that gray wolves from as disparate locations as China, Israel, and Croatia were symmetrically related to modern-day dogs. This observation suggests that dogs were domesticated prior to the diversification of present-day gray wolf populations or that the wild ancestors of dogs are now extinct. The latter scenario would be consistent with an earlier finding of a morphologically distinct wolf population adapted to megafaunal prey in Late Pleistocene Beringia, as well as mitochondrial DNA evidence for a Holocene replacement of European gray wolves. One hypothesis could thus be that the wild ancestors of dogs were a genetically distinct wolf population that inhabited the Late Pleistocene steppe-tundra biome and that this population was subsequently replaced, possibly by a northward postglacial expansion of smaller-bodied wolves that gave rise to modern-day wolf diversity. To test this hypothesis, we sequenced a draft genome of a Late Pleistocene wolf from northern Siberia.

Source: Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds: Current Biology

Share

Alaska Using Wolf Hair DNA to Count Wolves

“Researchers sleuth out areas on Prince of Wales frequented by wolf packs and their prey. There, the biologists hide planks of wood stapled with lengths of barbed wire and scented with a cocktail of odors, such as coyote urine, that are irresistible to wolves.

Then they wait. Motion-sensing trail cameras capture what happens next.

“Wolves are dogs and anybody knows, that has a dog, they like to roll in stinky things,” Logan said.

When the animals sniff out the wooden planks and rub against the wire, they leave strands of fur behind that Alaska researchers collect and ship 1,000 miles away for study at a Montana university for genetics testing. The DNA results can show how many different wolves came into contact with the lures — a less invasive, less dangerous method than trying to collar or count the animals from the air.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

DNA Studies – Smaller Native Wolves Existed in Northern Rockies before Canadian Wolf Transplant

By George Dovel (Republished with Permission)

In the Jan-Mar 2008 Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 26, the lead articled titled, “What They Didn’t Tell You about Wolf Recovery,” described the ongoing deception by federal and state biologists in their scheme to fill rural areas in the lower 48 states with wolves.

The article referred to 20 years of Dept. of Interior Solicitors (lawyers) changing the number of N. American wolf subspecies covered in the Endangered Species Act from 24, finally to two and back to four – and then to any or all wolves called “gray wolves” or “Canis lupus”. Then it told how FWS reclassified ESA-listed wolves as members of two “Distinct Population Segments”, which it later changed to three until a federal judge denounced the obvious attempt to circumvent the ESA.

The ongoing debate between wildlife scientists who classify species, concerns whether subspecies of elk (red deer), North American bison, grey wolves, etc., exist. Bona fide expert taxonomists include Dr. Valerius Geist who points out that changes in location, habitat, size and appearance alone do not necessarily change the genetic make-up to qualify an animal as a separate sub-specie.

However the Northern Rocky Mountains wolf subspecies – C. l. Irremotus – was documented by physical comparisons of skulls, etc., from larger wolves in 1959:

Page 2 of the 146-page FWS Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan dated August 3, 1987, contains the map showing the historical distribution of Canis lupus Irremotus in the lower 48 states, plus the 1987 distribution in black. It depicts immigration of Irremotus from southern British Columbia into Idaho and from B.C. or southern Alberta into the northwest corner of Montana.

It also shows the two 1987 Irremotus population areas in central Idaho, one of which included the three wolf pack territories mapped by Tim Kimmery between 1988 and 1991 (see Outdoorsman Bulletin No. 35).

Historical Impact on Wolf Subspecies

During the most recent (Pleistocene) ice age, water evaporating from the oceans became part of the glacial ice covering the land. Ocean levels dropped 300 feet or more and the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska dried up.
The exposed land bridge with little snow, later named Beringia, became a refuge for hardy Siberian animals and plants for several thousand years (see below).

Many scientists believe Beringia included a small human population from Siberia that was prevented from continuing into North America for 5,000 years by the North American ice sheets. Geologists report these continental ice sheets were 5,000-10,000 feet in depth and extended south in some places to the 40th Parallel below what is now the U.S.-Canadian border.

The artists’ three views of Beringia published by “Wikipedia” illustrate the changes that have occurred in the “Bering Land Bridge” during the last 18,000 years. But there is still disagreement among biologists about when, where and how several current mammal species first arrived on the North American Continent.

Subspecies Had Limited Opportunity to Crossbreed

Since 1995 a number of wildlife biologists have accepted the determination by Nowak that five subspecies of gray wolf (Canus lupus) inhabited North America during the early 20th Century. There is also agreement that Canis lupus occidentalis (the large gray wolf transplanted to Yellowstone and Central Idaho by FWS in 1995) had virtually no opportunity to influence the genetic make-up of coastal wolves in SE Alaska and Yukon and portions of five other Canadian Provinces where it existed.

For thousands of years the ice between interior Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia and the coastal area prevented the occidentalis wolves from mixing with the smaller wolves defined as C. lupis ligoni by Goldman in 1944. And the intensive efforts to kill all wolves in the early 1900s also left few of the large wolves alive in most areas where they might have mixed with the native wolves.

The map below in the study titled, “Legacy Lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated U.S. gray wolves (Canis lupis),” published by Leonard et al in the 2005 Vol. 14 issue of Molecular Ecology, shows the five primary subspecies that existed in the early 1900s. The bold black line indicates the northern limit of gray wolf eradication that occurred in the 48 contiguous United States and Canada.

In 1995, C.l. nubilus, the primary subspecies common in the U.S. and Canada mainland included ligoni from the west coast of Canada, irremotus from the Northern Rocky Mountains and labradorius from Labrador. The “a” to “z” letters scattered on the map represent original locations of the various museum specimens whose DNA were recorded in the study.

A similar study titled, “Phylogeography of wolves (Canis lupus) in the Pacific Northwest”, by Weckworth et al (published in the 2010 (2) issue of the Journal of Mammology) used basically the same map, along with an expanded inset to illustrate locations of testing for the genetic difference between the smaller coastal wolves and the 30% larger occidentalis wolves from the Alaska and Yukon interiors.

Both of these DNA studies emphasize that the nubilus wolves migrated northward to populate Canada as the ice sheets and glaciers melted. They point out that the smaller wolves existed in the south before the larger wolves migrated into northern Canada, and the Weckworth study suggests the coastal wolves should be listed as a separate individual subspecies.

Court Allows Transplants – Then Orders Removal

Readers who actively opposed the FWS option to import Canadian wolves may recall the following events:
In 1994 the Farm Bureau, Audubon Society and other plaintiffs asked the Wyoming Federal District Court to halt wolf introduction because it could not legally occur where naturally occurring wolves already existed per the 10J Rule. But instead of issuing an injunction to halt the process while the arguments were presented, Judge Downes allowed FWS to go ahead and transplant Canadian wolves into Central Idaho and Yellowstone Park for three years until he issued his ruling in December of 1997.

Then after setting aside the final wolf introduction rules as unlawful, Judge Downes ordered FWS to remove all Canadian wolves and their progeny from both experimental population areas. This ruling was met with loud criticism by the wolf activists, including the state and federal wildlife agencies who apparently believed they could get by with ignoring both state and federal laws when it suited their agenda.

Judge “Passes the Buck” to Appeals Court

They quickly pointed out that it would not be possible to even locate most of the wolves – much less capture them. But even if that were possible, both Canadian Provinces refused to allow the wolves to return and there were not enough zoos willing to accept several hundred wild wolves so killing most was the only option.

Judge Downes could have prevented this disaster from occurring by simply putting wolf introduction on hold three years earlier until his decision was reached. But the second time he did essentially the same thing by later staying execution of his removal order pending an appeals decision by the 10th Circuit Court.

On January 13, 2000, five years after the first large Canadian wolves were introduced, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the December 1998 Wyoming District Court ruling that the reintroduction program was unlawful and should be revoked. The appeals court admitted that the evidence showed native irremotus wolves already existed when the larger Canadian wolves were introduced, but said FWS had the authority to determine what constituted a population.
The fact that the resident wolves coexisted with abundant big game populations and with negligible impact on livestock and human activity was already a matter of record in 1994. But on August 12, 1994, FWS Wolf Leader Ed Bangs sent a letter to Charles Lobdell telling him to stop issuing statements to the public advising that the number of reported resident wolves was increasing.

Bangs’ letter advised that FWS planned to introduce wolves from Canada and said: “From this day forward…confirmed wolf activity (will only include) individual wolves or members of packs that have been examined, radio-collared and monitored in the wild.” He also said he had transferred $9,000 to the FWS Boise Field Office to search for wolves and organize flights to locate any radio-collared wolves that might be in Idaho or the Yellowstone area during the summer and fall.

Bangs also included key issues to be presented to the public consistently by FWS:
“1. (I)t is likely that wolf populations would ultimately recover without reintroduction and breeding pairs of wolves would likely occur in Idaho before they would occur (in) Yellowstone.

4. Experimental populations will not knowingly contain a significant portion of the territory of any naturally occurring breeding pair that has successfully raised young. However once wolves are released all wolves in the area will be treated as experimental animals.”

Despite reported wolf sightings by more then 120 outfitters, trappers and others in less than two months, most in the same location where Kemery mapped three wolf pack areas from 1988-1991, and despite the USFS road closure to protect existing wolves (see Bulletin 35), Bangs dumped Canadian wolves halfway between the two known native wolf locations guaranteeing their extermination.

In February of 2012, I forwarded the Weckworth DNA study, without comment, to Dr. Valerius Geist. The following was his reply:

“Thank you, George, I have seen this study. To me it suggests that there was indeed a remnant of native wolves in Idaho that were finally done away with by introduced wolves from Canada. The native wolves would have been of the same clad as the coastal wolves. Anyway, that’s testable since some museum specimens of native Idaho wolves are still available for genetic analysis. However, somebody competent and trustworthy needs to do it. Cheers, Val Geist.”

Share